Talk:Gay disease

Where in the reference does it say anything about people being unsure as to homosexuals standing in terms of the AIDS epidemic? Fantomas 09:43, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

"Through media attention to AIDS and homosexual groups which have taken a stand both for their rights and against AIDS, homosexual practices and lifestyles have become more accepted. Many people, however, remain unsure whether to blame gays for AIDS or to view them as unfortunate victims in a public health nightmare. Media coverage has also caused many homosexuals to question their personal and social acceptance, and ultimately grow scared about their future. The author notes the gulf between religious and moral conservatives who condemn gay sex and homosexuality on the one hand, and Bacchanalian proponents who defend their freedom to have consensual sex with anyone and as often as they please."

You may not agree with it, but it is there.
--OfficerDibble 09:59, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

oops, sorry, i read it twice, i thought - i retract my question. and yes, i don't agree with it. Fantomas 10:31, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Is this for real?

Should be merged because the article says it's just another word for it. A section in the AIDS article could replace this one.

No, the concept of a "gay disease" is more general. It refers to any disease which is spread by homosexual behavior, especially the sexual behavior of homosexual men (i.e., "gays"). I don't know why people who like homosexuality are always stressing that both men and women are homosexual (with the phrase "gays and lesbians"), but I guess they don't want to be ignored.

Having your own group of diseases is a great way to get attention (and federal research funds), although the cost in suffering and death may be a bit high for folks like me. --Ed PoorTalk 18:43, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

"Organizations promoting homosexuality wanted to get the public to believe that AIDS was not just a threat to promiscuous homosexual men"

I think I will reword or remove this. There are millions of heterosexuals in Africa and China suffering from HIV/AIDS. It's dishonest to imply gay rights groups practiced revisionism on this particular subject--CamilleT 13:03, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

You're absolutely right about the present, but the snippet there is talking about the early days of the disease's spread in the West, where the vast majority of HIV cases at that time were either homosexual men or IV drug users. No doubt it could be re-worded to make that clearer, but it is an important historical point. Jcw 13:11, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

Spreads vs has spread

Ed, actually I prefer "spreads", or even "tends to spread", rather than "has spread". Remember, we are not just describing existing diseases, but also future, yet undiscovered ones. --Leo-from-UK 14:04, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

LOL, ROFL!!!

"Lesbians were three to four times more likely...to have sex with men who were high-risk for HIV." I'm no expert, but I think whoever wrote that needs to read up on what "lesbian" means. --RudrickBoucher 02:43, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

I revised it to say: It is common for some people who self-identify as lesbians to actually be bisexuals. Dr. John Diggs reported: "Australian investigators reported that lesbian women were 4.5 times more likely to have had more than 50 lifetime male partners than heterosexual women (9 percent of lesbians versus 2 percent of heterosexual women); and 93 percent of women who identified themselves as lesbian reported a history of sex with men."[2] It was further reported concerning self reported "lesbians": "In addition to diseases that may be transmitted during lesbian sex, a study at an Australian STD clinic found that lesbians were three to four times more likely than heterosexual women to have sex with men who were high-risk for HIV." [2] Conservative 03:52, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

Diseases have no sexual orientation

This article is just stupid. ZackV (talk) 00:56, 18 September 2016 (EDT)